I believe at this point XKCD has a comic about everything I care about. This pretty much summed up how I became into politics from an interest in Science.
Now Google up "Great Galveston Hurricane" for extra table-flippage.
Or just consider that a guy who has been running for president pretty the entire time he's been in politics is saying "A state can decide. We don't need somebody in Washington."
No, Ron, That's just you. Literally. We don't need you in Washington, you can go home now. Be sure to bring your son along for a long, long visit.
Now Google up "Great Galveston Hurricane" for extra table-flippage.
Or just consider that a guy who has been running for president pretty the entire time he's been in politics is saying "A state can decide. We don't need somebody in Washington."
No, Ron, That's just you. Literally. We don't need you in Washington, you can go home now. Be sure to bring your son along for a long, long visit.
Isn't that part of Ron Paul's policies essentially Reagan's old (paraphrasing) "the scariest words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help?"
Isn't that part of Ron Paul's policies essentially Reagan's old (paraphrasing) "the scariest words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help?"
Something like that - except he is a firm beliver in all sorts of illuminati and New World Order(Not the wrestlers, the other one, but you never know. Hogan/Nash 2012!) sort of nonsense, and that they control the world, or are trying really, really hard to.
Isn't that part of Ron Paul's policies essentially Reagan's old (paraphrasing) "the scariest words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help?"
Something like that - except he is a firm beliver in all sorts of illuminati and New World Order(Not the wrestlers, the other one, but you never know. Hogan/Nash 2012!) sort of nonsense, and that they control the world, or are trying really, really hard to.
"Whatcha gonna do, brother, when Hulkamania drops the big leg on our nation's crippling debt?!?"
I can't figure out why all the righties can't stop talking about how Obama is a lying, corrupt thief. Can anyone fill me in on what Obama has done for this reputation?
I can't figure out why all the righties can't stop talking about how Obama is a lying, corrupt thief. Can anyone fill me in on what Obama has done for this reputation?
I can't figure out why all the righties can't stop talking about how Obama is a lying, corrupt thief. Can anyone fill me in on what Obama has done for this reputation?
He was born black?
Also, his middle name is Hussein and his father was an atheist who was previously Muslim.
In today's political climate, I fear a constitutional convention more than most anything I can imagine fearing.
Yea, could you imagine the derp that would be added into that!
I think the constitution amendments that they want and what they will get from a convention are two entirely different things. Remember what all the different states wanted at the last one? Some states wanted to own people some didn't, so slaves ended up being 7/8ths(or something like that) of a person for some arcane bureaucratic reason.
In today's political climate, I fear a constitutional convention more than most anything I can imagine fearing.
Yea, could you imagine the derp that would be added into that!
I think the constitution amendments that they want and what they will get from a convention are two entirely different things. Remember what all the different states wanted at the last one? Some states wanted to own people some didn't, so slaves ended up being 7/8ths(or something like that) of a person for some arcane bureaucratic reason.
Not trying to be pedantic - but it wasn't arcane bureaucracy at all. It was a problem of representation in the House. Some southern states didn't have as large a population as some northern states, so they wanted to count slaves. The northern states said, "Hey, wait. They shouldn't be counted as population for representation purposes because you guys are always telling us about how they're property, not people. Also, you wouldn't want them to be able to vote, so it doesn't make any sense that they should be counted as population." The southern states said, "Well, if they aren't counted, you guys have way more representation in the House than we do, and that's not fair."
So, they compromised and counted them as 3/5.
It directly affected the balance of power in the House. It was about as far from the definition of "arcane" as you can get. Also, the number of votes a state had in the Electoral College was directly tied to population, so the compromise directly affected presidential elections - not arcane at all, really.
BUT - if that's the only problem you have with a constitutional convention, I don't really see the point. In that case, a compromise was made. That compromise might be perceived as odious, upsetting, unfair, dastardly, and all types of other evil things to us today, but the main good thing about it was that there was a rational discussion (AGAIN - rational FOR THAT TIME) that ended in an agreement. If the tea-party types got a convention, there would be no rationality at all.
BUT - if that's the only problem you have with a constitutional convention, I don't really see the point. In that case, a compromise was made. That compromise might be perceived as odious, upsetting, unfair, dastardly, and all types of other evil things to us today, but the main good thing about it was that there was a rational discussion (AGAIN - rational FOR THAT TIME) that ended in an agreement. If the tea-party types got a convention, there would be no rationality at all.
Part of me wonders if it wouldn't be OK to allow them to have their own little convention to discuss reframing the constitution the way they wanted to. As long as Democrats control one side of the legislative branch and the White House, we can mitigate the actual changes they can introduce. As well, it would cause so much infighting between the Republicans and the Tea Party that it would further weaken their collective resolve (possibly) and ability to get anything done.
And, it would create further reason for laughing at them when they start saying "Hey our founding fathers meant this we should interpret it literally" when they wanted to rewrite the thing anyway.
The point I was trying to make was that some states wanted to abolish slavery, some states wanted to enshrine it and they got something that didn't really do either. The minor details are kind of irrelevant to my point. I understand that the fractional count was a way of determining population numbers for representatives. I did learn that in 5th grade. My point is that no one really got want they wanted.
As long as Democrats control one side of the legislative branch and the White House, they can grumble for a while but eventually cave under the banner of compromise.
I think it's an interesting idea. Convene the states to possibly make amendments to the constitution that super-cedes and goes around the Fed. But what will they do? Enshrine Christianity? Rewrite the laws that govern how corporations work? Abolish the idea of spending money is the equivalent of free speech? Or would they end up doing things that are strange combinations as a result of compromises that don't accomplish anything?
I think that there is some potential here for some good to be done, but also the potential for huge damage.
As long as Democrats control one side of the legislative branch and the White House, they can grumble for a while but eventually cave under the banner of compromise.
I think it's an interesting idea. Convene the states to possibly make amendments to the constitution that super-cedes and goes around the Fed. But what will they do? Enshrine Christianity? Rewrite the laws that govern how corporations work? Abolish the idea of spending money is the equivalent of free speech? Or would they end up doing things that are strange combinations as a result of compromises that don't accomplish anything?
I think that there is some potential here for some good to be done, but also the potential for huge damage.
Make it legal to kill/imprison those who don't think like them. I don't think anything useful would be done, really. Just a lot of anger and frustration and even more divisiveness and disenfranchisement within the country.
I'm not really sure what needs to be done to fix things, or even if things can be fixed anymore. The whole system seems screwed up, aside from NASAthe FDAthe FAAUS Lighthouse Service.
I think it's an interesting idea. Convene the states to possibly make amendments to the constitution that super-cedes and goes around the Fed.
We convene the states with every session of Congress. If you're talking about another body that would constitute "the States," who makes up that body? If we agree to honor the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and if we're really committed to lex rex, then we're obligated to respect the precepts of the Constitution. That means Congress only has the power to amend, and we the people have the power to choose Congress. If we ignore that structure, then we're setting a dangerous precedent of disregarding the holiest parts of the Constitution, and I'm not willing to sacrifice the Bill of Rights because some tea bagger wants to write new rules.
The point I was trying to make was that some states wanted to abolish slavery, some states wanted to enshrine it and they got something that didn't really do either.
No, at the time very few people wanted to abolish slavery. Pennsylvania actually abolished it due in large part to its Quaker population, and it was made illegal in the west, but abolition was not really on the minds of most of the people involved in writing the constitution.
Abolition as a movement didn't really catch on until the 1820s or so. Even then, few states taken as a whole were in favor of abolition. They sometimes agreed on limitations or restrictions in new territories, but the idea that a group of states wanted to abolish slavery in another group of states at the time of the first constitutional conventions is simply wrong.
The minor details are kind of irrelevant to my point.
Actually, the details are very relevant, because they undermine your point. Since they indermine your point, they are not minor details.
I understand that the fractional count was a way of determining population numbers for representatives. I did learn that in 5th grade.
It's odd that you didn't write that in the first place, if it was so obvious to you. It's doubly odd that, if you " understand that the fractional count was a way of determining population numbers for representatives", that you instead said that it was "arcane bureaucracy".
It's pretty clear fro, your first post that you didn't really understand what you were talking about. Don't make it worse by trying to minimize it. If you really did learn this in the 5th grade, you must have forgotten it while you were writing your first post.
My point is that no one really got want they wanted.
So . . . your point was that the first constitutional conventions were somehow flawed because there was a compromise? On this one thing? Do you think that this was the only compromise made at that time? Do you think, that, instead of compromise, one group or the other should have gained everything while the other group gained nothing? Is that the way you think government works?
I think it's an interesting idea. Convene the states to possibly make amendments to the constitution that super-cedes and goes around the Fed.
What? How would that work, exactly?
There is no legal mechanism that currently exists that can even come close to doing this. I would really like to know what you're talking about. Are you talking about exchanging one level of government for another? Maybe adding a layer of government?
it was a bad example to use to try and make a point. I'm walking away from it as an example.
I will restate my point. Since you are missing it and focusing on the details too much. This is a conjecture conversation not a persuasive statement there is no need to prove anything here.
It will be interesting to see what kind of amalgamation comes of this constitutional convention. I doubt that the people who are calling for this to happen will be happy with the results. But what will those results be, I wonder? Will they be a strange mix of a middle ground that doesn't really address the concerns of either party or will it make our governance more succinct, or will it make things worse?
I think it's an interesting idea. Convene the states to possibly make amendments to the constitution that super-cedes and goes around the Fed.
What? How would that work, exactly?
There is no legal mechanism that currently exists that can even come close to doing this. I would really like to know what you're talking about. Are you talking about exchanging one level of government for another? Maybe adding a layer of government?
"A federal constitutional convention, designed to give states powers similar to Congress to propose amendments, has not been held since 1787 when the constitution was first drafted." "The power to make these changes is derived from Article V of the Constitution, which allows a constitutional convention at the request of legislatures of two thirds of the states. But such a process has never been carried to completion."
Comments
I believe at this point XKCD has a comic about everything I care about. This pretty much summed up how I became into politics from an interest in Science.
Now Google up "Great Galveston Hurricane" for extra table-flippage.
No, Ron, That's just you. Literally. We don't need you in Washington, you can go home now. Be sure to bring your son along for a long, long visit.
http://news.yahoo.com/tea-party-harvard-explore-constitutional-convention-194942206.html
...and yes, that was as hard to write as you imagine.
So, they compromised and counted them as 3/5.
It directly affected the balance of power in the House. It was about as far from the definition of "arcane" as you can get. Also, the number of votes a state had in the Electoral College was directly tied to population, so the compromise directly affected presidential elections - not arcane at all, really.
BUT - if that's the only problem you have with a constitutional convention, I don't really see the point. In that case, a compromise was made. That compromise might be perceived as odious, upsetting, unfair, dastardly, and all types of other evil things to us today, but the main good thing about it was that there was a rational discussion (AGAIN - rational FOR THAT TIME) that ended in an agreement. If the tea-party types got a convention, there would be no rationality at all.
And, it would create further reason for laughing at them when they start saying "Hey our founding fathers meant this we should interpret it literally" when they wanted to rewrite the thing anyway.
I think that there is some potential here for some good to be done, but also the potential for huge damage.
I'm not really sure what needs to be done to fix things, or even if things can be fixed anymore. The whole system seems screwed up, aside from NASA the FDA the FAA US Lighthouse Service.
Abolition as a movement didn't really catch on until the 1820s or so. Even then, few states taken as a whole were in favor of abolition. They sometimes agreed on limitations or restrictions in new territories, but the idea that a group of states wanted to abolish slavery in another group of states at the time of the first constitutional conventions is simply wrong. Actually, the details are very relevant, because they undermine your point. Since they indermine your point, they are not minor details. It's odd that you didn't write that in the first place, if it was so obvious to you. It's doubly odd that, if you " understand that the fractional count was a way of determining population numbers for representatives", that you instead said that it was "arcane bureaucracy".
It's pretty clear fro, your first post that you didn't really understand what you were talking about. Don't make it worse by trying to minimize it. If you really did learn this in the 5th grade, you must have forgotten it while you were writing your first post. So . . . your point was that the first constitutional conventions were somehow flawed because there was a compromise? On this one thing? Do you think that this was the only compromise made at that time? Do you think, that, instead of compromise, one group or the other should have gained everything while the other group gained nothing? Is that the way you think government works? What? How would that work, exactly?
There is no legal mechanism that currently exists that can even come close to doing this. I would really like to know what you're talking about. Are you talking about exchanging one level of government for another? Maybe adding a layer of government?
I will restate my point. Since you are missing it and focusing on the details too much. This is a conjecture conversation not a persuasive statement there is no need to prove anything here.
It will be interesting to see what kind of amalgamation comes of this constitutional convention. I doubt that the people who are calling for this to happen will be happy with the results. But what will those results be, I wonder? Will they be a strange mix of a middle ground that doesn't really address the concerns of either party or will it make our governance more succinct, or will it make things worse? "A federal constitutional convention, designed to give states powers similar to Congress to propose amendments, has not been held since 1787 when the constitution was first drafted."
"The power to make these changes is derived from Article V of the Constitution, which allows a constitutional convention at the request of legislatures of two thirds of the states. But such a process has never been carried to completion."
From the article I linked earlier.
ARE YOU ENTERTAINED?